Religion obviously doesn't come packaged with a sense of humour either, especially when it comes to poking fun at yourselves. :hihi:

I am not amused farmboy least of all by your personal comments. :mad:

I am not amused farmboy least of all by your personal comments. :mad:

Thanks for proving my point. :)

I'm still waiting for undeniable proof farmboy. So go ahead please. Let me help you, I am a Christian and you say that is wrong. Now you tell me what is wrong with that statement of fact.

Can you tell us what is right about it? (not disputing that it's a statement of fact, any more than it's a statement of fact that I live in Sheffield.)

So is your assertion purely that you're a Christian? I have no prob with that, any more than if you said you were tall, short, or muslim or pagan. Statement of fact!

I am not amused by your personal comments.

Then don't lay yourself open to them:rolleyes:

Then don't lay yourself open to them:rolleyes:

It came out of the blue and was uncalled for.

It came out of the blue and was uncalled for.

Hardly out of the blue, see my post (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349846&page=15#283) a little ealier:).

Even if there was a "god", surely you can see how your choice of wording comes across as a little disturbed (remember David Ike....):hihi:

You do seem to make a habit of stating belief as fact, when they clearly are not. Then not like it when you're "taken to task" about your comments.

Attacking forum users because their beliefs are different from your own is grounds for bans to be issued. I'm surprised it has been allowed to continue for so long.

The problem with this is that the majority of forummers can't have a healthy discussion about whether God exists or not without people like yourself coming on here spouting babble and preaching from the bible which alot of folks find offensive. Can you come up with a suitable argument without quoting religious scripture or bible text because as soon as alot of folks see things like John 12:1 or whatever they tend to switch off, myself included.

Preaching from the bible in threads such as this is pointless because the atheists and sceptics don't believe it was divinely inspired like you and your fellow delusionists. :) You need to find another way to reach us if you want to convince or (even less likely) convert.

Attacking forum users because their beliefs are different from your own is grounds for bans to be issued.

The same could be said of religionists (like yourself) who should also be banned for constantly attacking users because of their lack of beliefs?

I'm surprised it has been allowed to continue for so long.

As I said earlier, comments such as what you see on the screen is God speaking through me.

do make you something of a sitting duck.

TBH, you're the first christian I've ever heard speak in such a way, and I find it quite disturbing (on so many levels).

In fact, I think I'll stick to reading this thread from here on as I can see this starting to get "messy".

The problem with this is that the majority of forummers can't have a healthy discussion about whether God exists or not without people like yourself coming on here spouting babble and preaching from the bible which alot of folks find offensive. Can you come up with a suitable argument without quoting religious scripture or bible text because as soon as alot of folks see things like John 12:1 or whatever they tend to switch off, myself included.

Preaching from the bible in threads such as this is pointless because the atheists and sceptics don't believe it was divinely inspired like you and your fellow delusionists. :) You need to find another way to reach us if you want to convince or (even less likely) convert.

How can you discuss religion or any subject come to that without knowing about it?

By the way, I'm not trying to convert anyone.

The same could be said of religionists (like yourself) who should also be banned for constantly attacking users because of their lack of beliefs?



As I said earlier, comments such as

do make you something of a sitting duck.

TBH, you're the first christian I've ever heard speak in such a way, and I find it quite disturbing (on so many levels).

In fact, I think I'll stick to reading this thread from here on as I can see this starting to get "messy".

All I do is to reply to people who quote me as you are doing now, and in a rather aggressive manner.

Whether you believe in God or not,the basics of theTen Commandments are right for the kind of life you hope for if you'd like not to be murdered, or robbed, or have some jerk steal your wife. They were not written by or especially for Christians unless Jesus was older than Moses.

The ten commmandments say slavery is ok slavery is ok. How say you now.:confused:

Whether you believe in God or not,the basics of theTen Commandments are right for the kind of life you hope for if you'd like not to be murdered, or robbed, or have some jerk steal your wife. They were not written by or especially for Christians unless Jesus was older than Moses.

errrr Buck, I think you need to read what the 10 commandments actually say. Most of the provisions are about maintaining a power base for a religion. Others implicitly accept the morality of slavery.

What is left? do not murder, steal or lie? Are you really saying we need the 10 commandments for this??

what about the missing bits? what about respecting children (and not just parents)?

errrr Buck, I think you need to read what the 10 commandments actually say. Most of the provisions are about maintaining a power base for a religion. Others implicitly accept the morality of slavery.

What is left? do not murder, steal or lie? Are you really saying we need the 10 commandments for this??

what about the missing bits? what about respecting children (and not just parents)?

Buck, You may or may not know but Mr. Goose along with others attempts to trip people up and make life difficult for anyone who shows any sort of sympathy with Christianity. This is what the Bible says about parenting and also slavery, but this was not the modern slavery we know about but was more like being a kitchen maid or a gardener in an Edwardian household. The terms and conditions if you want to put it that way are very fair and equatable for everyone concerned and are not at all harsh as some people would like to make out. Here is what the Bible says on the subject:


"Children, it is your Christian duty to obey your parents, for this is the right thing to do. "Respect your father and mother" is the first commandment that has a promise added: "so that all may go well with you, and you may live a long time in the land."

Parents, do not treat your children in such a way as to make them angry. Instead, raise them with Christian discipline and instruction."

(My children should respect me, and as I am the child of my parents I have to respect them as well, it goes all the way through the generations.)


"Slaves (servants), obey your human masters with fear and trembling; and do it with a sincere heart, as though you were serving Christ. Do this not only when they are watching you, because you want to gain their approval; but with all your heart do what God wants, as servants of Christ.

Do your work as servants cheerfully, as though you served the Lord, and not merely human beings. Remember that the Lord will reward each of us, whether slave or free, for the good work we do.

Masters, behave in the same way toward your servants and stop using threats. Remember that you and your servants belong to the same Master in heaven, who judges everyone by the same standard."

(Ephesians chapter 6.)

All I do is to reply to people who quote me as you are doing now, and in a rather aggressive manner.

So... You reply to posts in a rather aggressive manner, yet wonder why people mock you repeatedly:confused:

This is what the Bible says about parenting and also slavery, but this was not the modern slavery we know about but was more like being a kitchen maid or a gardener in an Edwardian household. The terms and conditions if you want to put it that way are very fair and equatable for everyone concerned and are not at all harsh as some people would like to make out.

Oh Grahame, you do pick and choose your quotations, don't you?

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."


"Stripes" were lashes of a whip. Slaves, in biblical times as in others, were not the same as Edwardian gardeners or kitchen maids.

Slaves, in biblical times as in others, were not the same as Edwardian gardeners or kitchen maids.

Nothing so blind as blind faith:(

Nothing so blind as blind faith:(

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Buck, You may or may not know but Mr. Goose along with others attempts to trip people up and make life difficult for anyone who shows any sort of sympathy with Christianity. This is what the Bible says about parenting and also slavery, but this was not the modern slavery we know about but was more like being a kitchen maid or a gardener in an Edwardian household. The terms and conditions if you want to put it that way are very fair and equatable for everyone concerned and are not at all harsh as some people would like to make out. Here is what the Bible says on the subject:
Indeed it was a much better form of slavery where it's ok to beat slaves to death as long as it takes them a few days to die:

Exodus 21:20-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2021:20-21;&version=31;)

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

It's clear that the system of slavery advocated by the bible is obviously much better than forms of slavery where owners can beat people to death quickly and of course evil godless systems of morality such as secular humanism which condemn slavery outright.

You have omitted the first couple of verses.

(First we have the good servant)

Luke 12:43
"Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath."


(Now we have the bad servant who gets drunk and beats everyone up)

"But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;"


(Now the master arrives home unexpectedly and punishes the servant in exactly the same way as the servant was doing to his colleagues)

"The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

(Justice was done in a fair and even handed manner.)

Indeed it was a much better form of slavery where it's ok to beat slaves to death as long as it takes them a few days to die:

Exodus 21:20-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2021:20-21;&version=31;)

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

It's clear that the system of slavery advocated by the bible is obviously much better than forms of slavery where owners can beat people to death quickly and of course evil godless systems of morality such as secular humanism which condemn slavery outright.

Except it wasn't slavery as we know it, and the threat of death was there for the slaves protection. Such a threat would ensure the slaves safety.

Oh Sod it. I'm off to bang my head on a brick wall. :P

This is why RE should be taught in schools.

.

This is why RE should be taught in schools.

.

or brickwork.

Except it wasn't slavery as we know it, and the threat of death was there for the slaves protection. Such a threat would ensure the slaves safety.
:huh: Right so your god apparently told his chosen people that they could take slaves as war booty and then beat them to death 'for the slaves protection'.

If your gods aim was to 'ensure the slaves safety' wouldn't it have made rather more sense to tell his chosen people not to take slaves in the first place and to be nice to people instead?

There are debates on the fossil records alone- and the Cambrian period is the biggest obstacle. What predated the Cambrian explosion. Nothing.
This simply isn't true, there are pre-Cambrian fossils if you read something other than lying creationist websites you'd know that.

The newly emerging picture of life from genetic studies do not fit with the traditional fossil-based "tree of life." There are unexpected similarities between very distant taxa and unexpected differences between very close groups. Biologist and ID proponent Jonathan Wells addresses this issue in his new book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design," which I strongly suggest.
I take it that plagiarism isn't regarded as immoral in your branch of Islam then. Unless of course you really are Mustafa Akyol (http://www.thewhitepath.com/archives/2006/09/akyolmatzke_debate_on_darwinism_vs_id.php).

Anyway seeing as Mustafa made the claim that 'The newly emerging picture of life from genetic studies do not fit with the traditional fossil-based "tree of life."' 2 years ago then no doubt you should be able to point us to no end of peer reviewed articles on what would be a subject of enormous interest to all biologists.

<snip yet more plagiarised lying creationist advocacy from Mustafa Akyol that doesn't address any of the points made in my previous post>
Will you please stop stealing the work of other creationists and actually respond to what I've taken the trouble to write instead of just cutting and pasting more lies.

A nice start would be to answer this point from my previous post (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3585926&postcount=259):

Please do explain precisely what the limits of 'micro evolution' are and explain how dna knows to stop evolving once it reaches this threshold?

:huh: Right so your god apparently told his chosen people that they could take slaves as war booty and then beat them to death 'for the slaves protection'.

If your gods aim was to 'ensure the slaves safety' wouldn't it have made rather more sense to tell his chosen people not to take slaves in the first place and to be nice to people instead?

And the central theme running through the Bible is of peace and love for others.

Bit contradictory then isn't it? Peace and love for everyone, unless you're a slave. Then you're kinda fecked!

Instead of quoting bible text, again, why not give your opinion as to whether slavery is right or wrong in principle? What do YOU think about it? Not the bible, just you. :)

Bit contradictory then isn't it? Peace and love for everyone, unless you're a slave. Then you're kinda fecked!

Instead of quoting bible text, again, why not give your opinion as to whether slavery is right or wrong in principle? What do YOU think about it? Not the bible, just you. :)

This is the answer we never get. Christians often smokescreen the answer (see Graham's posts) in that slavery was somehow different or OK in those days...

And the central theme running through the Bible is of peace and love for others.



1. errrrr no. The theme is actualy "stick with our club and go to heaven, deny or insult god and it is hell for you.". The old carrot and stick mentality.

2. errrrr no. An all-powerful god of love who allows death, disease, suffering and evil in the world, just because of the original sin?

If you made up this concept and used it as the basis of a cult in a novel, a reader could only define the religion as "evil".

You quote from the Bible and take it out of context but those laws were for peoples protection, in particular the stranger, the fatherless, the widow and those who found themselves in a strange land. The laws were there to protect people from those over them who were the rulers, the landowners and their masters. These people did not need protection, it was those under them who needed laws to help keep them safe and secure. These were the people who were destitute and were given work to do and were taken into peoples homes where they found safety and security. The laws were to protect the servants from the bad employers. Here it is explained in more detail:

"Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner; remember that you were foreigners in Egypt. Do not mistreat any widow or orphan. If you do, I, the LORD, will answer them when they cry out to me for help, and I will become angry"

(Exodus 22:21)


"Be joyful in the LORD's presence, together with your children, your servants, and the Levites, foreigners, orphans, and widows who live in your towns. Do this at the one place of worship. Be sure that you obey these commands; do not forget that you were slaves in Egypt.

After you have threshed all your grain and pressed all your grapes, celebrate the Festival of Shelters for seven days. Enjoy it with your children, your servants, and the Levites, foreigners, orphans, and widows who live in your towns."

(Deuteronomy 16:11)

Attacking forum users because their beliefs are different from your own is grounds for bans to be issued. I'm surprised it has been allowed to continue for so long.

Well, if that's the case, it's been nice talking to you Grahame as you'll be leaving us very shortly I reckon!

Well, if that's the case, it's been nice talking to you Grahame as you'll be leaving us very shortly I reckon!

And another hostile post coupled with a veiled threat.

You quote from the Bible and take it out of context


Graham

You seem unable to answer any direct questions! Also you mix and match your qoutes - missing out all the evil and spiteful elements of the bible.

Too be clear - my problems with the mixed up and conflicting moral messages in the bible are basically that Jesus does not represent "love" in any special or meaningful way.

You frequently refer to "the Christian message" of love/brotherhood. But there is nothing exclusively Christian about this message; it is basic to modern Humanism, as it was to the pre-Christian Humanism of China, Greece, Rome and others. In the 6th century BC Confucius came up with the "Golden Rule", and Lao-Tzu asked his followers to ”requite injuries with good deeds" (recognise that one?). And later the Stoics (my favourites), proclaimed the brotherhood of man regardless of race or nation. There is no ground whatever for the claim, so often made by religious apologists, that these ideals are specifically Christian and originated with Jesus.

What were specifically Christian were the less enlightened teachings, which have done untold harm. Christians claim that organised Christianity has been a great force for good, but this view can be maintained on one assumption only: that everything good in the Christian era is a result of Christianity, and that everything bad happened in spite of it. But, as a matter of historical fact many of the worst features of life in the ages of faith (and later) have stemmed directly from the teaching of the Church. Outstanding among these features are the doctrine of hell, intolerance and persecution, anti-intellectualism, asceticism, foolish otherworldliness, and the condonation of slavery.

And another hostile post coupled with a veiled threat.

HAHAHA!

You make me laugh.

You're probably THE worst culprit for making attacks on other's faiths and theories.

If anyone is likely to be banned, you're more than likely to be the first my friend.

And how can it be a threat when I haven't got the power to ban anyone?

I sense fear in you.

Please do explain precisely what the limits of 'micro evolution' are and explain how dna knows to stop evolving once it reaches this threshold?

I have no problem with evolution. I view it as another one of God's natural laws. God may have set the laws of evolution in place as another means of generating new species. Another manifestation of His creativity!.We see examples of evolution when we observe a caterpillar turn into a butterfly or a fertilized egg become a beautiful baby. I understand that many bacterial infections EVOLVE to develop immunity against antibiotics and I unerstand that cells in my immune system constantly EVOLVE and develop.



The problem that the theory of evolution created is when people started to think that it can replace creation. It can't. At best, it supplements it. These people desperately want to replace God. They can't.

Man did not evolve. He was created. Other species may have evolved but that's no proof that man has too.
For me, there is no complete conclusive proof that we humans evolved from monkeys or they are our ancestors.
There have thousands of ape that have existed, most of them are extinct but evolutionist keep on hailing the discovery their fossils as a transitional forms between man and ape.

Many skulls presented as evidence for evolution failed one by one.

Here's a list some of them:

1. Piltdown men, presented as a transitional form in 1912, dismissed in 1953 when it was proven that it was just the human skull attached to jaw of an orang utan.

2. Nebraska men (Hesperopithecus Haroldcooki), presented as a transitional form in 1922, dismissed in 1927 when the tooth that was the source of inspiration for Nebraska men was actually the tooth of a wild pig.

3. Neandertal Man, presented as a transitional form in 1856, dismissed in 1960 when it was proven that Neandertal Man was an extinct human race.

4. Zinjantrophus, presented as a transitional form in 1559, dismissed in 1960.

5. Ramipithecus, presented as a transitional form in 1964, dismissed in 1979.

My info may be inconsistant with later foundings, but overall i do not see that there are any links to human evolving from monkeys or whatever. I have been recommended to read a book by Sean B Carroll and I will.

For Mr. Goose

I don't think you can condemn Christianity because it parallels other "good" philosophies. As you have said before everyone knows not to steal and murder but I don't think it is grounds for complaint when the Bible repeats it.

The problem is, and we see it time and time again is that people take the Bible out of context and say things like "the Bible says slaves should be beaten" which is plainly wrong except as we have seen if they become drunk and unruly and beat their colleagues and then they will be punished in the same way they mistreated those around them.

The Old Testament teaches an eye for an eye or to put it another way for the punishment fit the crime and that limits the extent of it thereby protecting the law breaker and the Bible expressly says not to take vengeance. The New Testament says to turn the other cheek.

This is the spirit that runs though the entire Bible, it is a spirit of love and protection, caring for others, self sacrifice, and giving more than you need, for example going the second mile. Breaking the law will result in punishment.

Then along come people of ill-will and quote the punishments and put that forward as Christian teaching, and it isn't at all, the Bible is about behaving in an honourable manner and if you don't and only then will you be punished, which happens in all societies and without it there would be anarchy.

Unfortunately there are people in Christian Churches who are reprehensible themselves and in my opinion should be routed out, but what I feel we need to do is to look at what the Bible says for ourselves and study it with sincerity of heart, rather than look to those who would seek to mislead.

.

Neandertal Man, presented as a transitional form in 1856, dismissed in 1960 when it was proven that Neandertal Man was an extinct human race.

So if they were humans, were they Created then? Or did they evolve? Are you saying God / Allah created several types of humans?

HAHAHA!

You make me laugh.

You're probably THE worst culprit for making attacks on other's faiths and theories.

If anyone is likely to be banned, you're more than likely to be the first my friend.

And how can it be a threat when I haven't got the power to ban anyone?

I sense fear in you.

Will you stop making threats and making accusations or I will report you.

Will you stop making threats and making accusations or I will report you.

Report me then.

Stop making threats... etc.

Will you stop making threats ... or I will report you.

Haha, comedy genius! I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate!

Neandertal Man, presented as a transitional form in 1856, dismissed in 1960 when it was proven that Neandertal Man was an extinct human race.

So if they were humans, were they Created then? Or did they evolve? Are you saying God / Allah created several types of humans?

Just butting in and keeping it short, I always say that extinction shows evolution to be wrong and that in the beginning there were far more species than we know, but they have died out.

Just butting in and keeping it short, I always say that extinction shows evolution to be wrong and that in the beginning there were far more species than we know, but they have died out.

So, God made the dinosaurs extinct and not the big ball of rock that hit the Earth?

Also, isn't man partly responsible for the extinction of a secies or two? Possibly more very soon.

So, in your eyes, it's God who's the evil one and wiping out His own creations?

Neandertal Man, presented as a transitional form in 1856, dismissed in 1960 when it was proven that Neandertal Man was an extinct human race.

So if they were humans, were they Created then? Or did they evolve? Are you saying God / Allah created several types of humans?

This link may show another directive
http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/

So, God made the dinosaurs extinct and not the big ball of rock that hit the Earth?

Also, isn't man partly responsible for the extinction of a secies or two? Possibly more very soon.

So, in your eyes, it's God who's the evil one and wiping out His own creations?

Stop it. Extinction is a law of nature, it happens.

I'm not sure if nature creates though? Natures job seems to be to rot things down.

Stop it. Extinction is a law of nature, it happens.

I'm not sure if nature creates though?

What are you on about? How did you get on the planet?:confused:

QUOTE--God/Allah was a very lucrative sales gimmick. It also produced some of the worlds best salesmen. Their blind faith philosophy kept the money rolling in.The side effects of blind faith were psychosis and dodoism.

Seemingly, millions are coming out of that psychosis and the blind faith
'business' is beginning to wilt in Europe

This is why RE should be taught in schools.

.

BUT we ourselves can teach RE.

thus ---God/Allah was a very lucrative sales gimmick. It also produced some of the worlds best salesmen. Their blind faith philosophy kept the money rolling in.The side effects of blind faith were psychosis and dodoism.
Seemingly, millions are coming out of that psychosis and the blind faith
'business' is beginning to wilt in Europe:huh:

This link may show another directive
http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/


My usual point -

"Forbidden archeology" is ANOTHER RELIGIOUS WEBSITE. This time, from the Hindu'Krishna perspective (I know this without even clicking on the link!). The book itself is very poor (yes I have read it, its bloody long too) and holds no water academically or scientifically.

Lets be clear - here is link to evidence of the numerous steps of human evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

My usual point -

"Forbidden archeology" is ANOTHER RELIGIOUS WEBSITE. This time, from the Hindu'Krishna perspective (I know this without even clicking on the link!). The book itself is very poor (yes I have read it, its bloody long too) and holds no water academically or scientifically.

Lets be clear - here is link to evidence of the numerous steps of human evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

The link did not work Mr Goose- but will try again.
There is clear evidence within many species of alteration and changes within the species. However, there is no concrete evidence to support a cross over in development from one type to another, such as reptiles turning into birds or alligators turning into cows. .

This is what I am trying to get into my head. No unequivocal scientific evidence exists in favor of evolution by natural selection changing specie types on a grand scale. There is no DNA research pointing to a connection between apes and humans as was supposed by the scientists and those who had financed them over the years.
Why are we (humans) still not evolving- have we reached perfection?
The more you learn, the more you actually realize how many variables have to be in play to make things possible for life as we know it.

Why are we (humans) still not evolving- have we reached perfection?

What makes you think we are not still evolving?
It would seem to me that some of us have a very long way to go!

The link did not work Mr Goose- but will try again.
There is clear evidence within many species of alteration and changes within the species. However, there is no concrete evidence to support a cross over in development from one type to another, such as reptiles turning into birds or alligators turning into cows. .
.

I am sorry you are 101% wrong on this. DNA sequencing, biochemistry and the fossil record provide plenty of evidence on this.

We are now able to provide fossil example of the steps beween very different "types" of creatures. From the DNA of living creatures we can see the evidence of these "steps" in evoultion.

100% unequivical evidence is found in the mutation rate/damage ratio to none-coding sections of the DNA (eg the gene for making fish haemogloblin in your DNA as compared with the functional elements (eg the haemoglobin for making your blood cells).

Common descent is the only explanation for this. DNA sequencing has now exposed how evolution actual happens (something Darwin could never have known).

Even if you chose to ignore the facts, it does not mean that they go away. They still remain facts. As said before, try reading science journals, NOT religious propoganda.

Just butting in and keeping it short, I always say that extinction shows evolution to be wrong and that in the beginning there were far more species than we know, but they have died out.


How they got their money's worth


Over the many centuries since religions were first invented, a huge amount of money was paid to clergy by very many people; probably most of them thought at the time that their payments were worth it. Gods were believed to be the ones governing what we these days call "nature", including the growth of everything, such as all food and all babies. And clergy made(?) people think that God or the gods are bribable, and that enough money, and/or goods and/or services for free to clergy will ensure favorable effects in the future.

So, God made the dinosaurs extinct and not the big ball of rock that hit the Earth?

Also, isn't man partly responsible for the extinction of a secies or two? Possibly more very soon.

So, in your eyes, it's God who's the evil one and wiping out His own creations?

There was always big money in selling god /allah leviathan 13


How they got their money's worth

Over the many centuries since religions were first invented, a huge amount of money was paid to clergy by very many people; probably most of them thought at the time that their payments were worth it. Gods were believed to be the ones governing what we these days call "nature", including the growth of everything, such as all food and all babies. And clergy made(?) people think that God or the gods are bribable, and that enough money, and/or goods and/or services for free to clergy will ensure favorable effects in the future.

Stop it. Extinction is a law of nature, it happens.

I'm not sure if nature creates though? Natures job seems to be to rot things down.

The extinction and change of species is what some folks call "evolution"

The extinction and change of species is what some folks call "evolution"

Yeh, OK.

Either way it doesn't affect my day to day Christian life.

I am sorry you are 101% wrong on this. DNA sequencing, biochemistry and the fossil record provide plenty of evidence on this.

We are now able to provide fossil example of the steps beween very different "types" of creatures. From the DNA of living creatures we can see the evidence of these "steps" in evoultion.

100% unequivical evidence is found in the mutation rate/damage ratio to none-coding sections of the DNA (eg the gene for making fish haemogloblin in your DNA as compared with the functional elements (eg the haemoglobin for making your blood cells).

Common descent is the only explanation for this. DNA sequencing has now exposed how evolution actual happens (something Darwin could never have known).

Even if you chose to ignore the facts, it does not mean that they go away. They still remain facts. As said before, try reading science journals, NOT religious propoganda.

Darwin himself in his letters confessed that his theory cannot be demonstrated scientifically in any case [i.e. one species evolving into another] but it helps explain a lot of things [even the explanations he sought in the light of modern discovery are faulty especially concerning rudimentary organs].

Also when I read extracts like below, when an evolutionist himself is questioning it, then why do you think there will always be gaps- the debate will always be there.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another."

"When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years."

"The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature."


"How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden, and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged, is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that undermines the very foundation of all the arguments he has been defending:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks... are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

"Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."

"The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swedish evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses the lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age, makes the following comment: "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us".

Yeh, OK.

Either way it doesn't affect my day to day Christian life.


Here's the rub - it should do.

It exposes the fact that we do not need fairy tales or stories of magic to explain why the world is as it is.

It explains why we die from vile diseases better than campfire myths.

Sorry and all that

Here's the rub - it should do.

It exposes the fact that we do not need fairy tales or stories of magic to explain why the world is as it is.

It explains why we die from vile diseases better than campfire myths.

Sorry and all that

You misunderstand Christianity.

Darwin himself in his letters confessed that his theory cannot be demonstrated scientifically in any case [i.e. one species evolving into another] but it helps explain a lot of things [even the explanations he sought in the light of modern discovery are faulty especially concerning rudimentary organs].

Also when I read extracts like below, when an evolutionist himself is questioning it, then why do you think there will always be gaps- the debate will always be there.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

Sigh - once more -

To be clear - the “Cambrian explosion” is an interesting debate within evoultionary theory,but it is that - part of the theory debate, not a rebutal. The basic fact that you can qoute this issue means that you are accepting the rest of what follows - including human evolution.

Anyway - the Cambrian was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago, but it was not the origin of complex life. There is evidence of multicellular life before then.

Creationists focus on the fact that this is when we first see trilobites, but they ignore the fact that there are also transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossil starta – showing that different types of critters existed prior to this.

In scientific journals/texts there are plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden in the Cambrain – for example the evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.


As for the Darwin qoute - I will repeat this - Darwin developed the theory WITHOUT KNOWING ABOUT DNA.

Since 1859 we have worked out how creatures evolve. The evience is clear and in every creatures DNA. Also, it is 2008 now, not 1859.

Nothing discovered in science however, contradicts the basics of Darwin - ie common descent.

You misunderstand Christianity.

So are you saying that the continued understanding of reality, no matter what evidence comes up, would impinge on your belief set?

I'm guessing that if the remains of Noah's Arc were unearthed you and other christians would be happy to jump on that as "proof", yet the reverse does not hold true.

You know all this science stuff Mr. Goose, it is a complete waste of time and is of no consequence at all when it comes to the beauty of a lovely picture, or music to the soul.

You know all this science stuff Mr. Goose, it is a complete waste of time and is of no consequence at all when it comes to the beauty of a lovely picture, or music to the soul.

So lets look at the flip side - what do YOU think when you see a child with cyctic fibrosis, somebody dying from bowel cancer or TV reports of a tidal wave that kills tens of thousands?

The world is full of wonderful things, but it is also home to awful random acts which cause suffering.

So are you saying that the continued understanding of reality, no matter what evidence comes up, would impinge on your belief set?

I'm guessing that if the remains of Noah's Arc were unearthed you and other christians would be happy to jump on that as "proof", yet the reverse does not hold true.

Noah's ark was years ago and doesn't affect my life but science does and things like the bomb and man made virus and GM food and BSE and other man made catastrophe's affect me immensely, unfortunately.

So lets look at the flip side - what do YOU think when you see a child with cyctic fibrosis, somebody dying from bowel cancer or TV reports of a tidal wave that kills tens of thousands?

The world is full of wonderful things, but it is also home to awful random acts which cause suffering.

I know people who are dying from these things now, in fact I am dying at this very minute and so are you and there is nothing you can do about it. So hey ho thanks a bunch science for nothing.

Yeh, OK.

Either way it doesn't affect my day to day Christian life.

Never the less Grahame, this God thing must be fed up with all this praying.

How you like people constantly arselicking around you.:huh:

You misunderstand Christianity.

It only seems that way to you because you confuse yourself.

On this thread alone you've had to rethink your statements and retract them a couple times.

People "misunderstand" Christianity because of the confusion that you spew forth. You say one thing, someone challenges it, you change your statement to get around it, someone else challenges that, you change it again until, eventually, you don't even know what you're saying and you look foolish because you've backtracked so many times.

WE understand what Christianity is; do you?

You misunderstand Christianity.

Whereas you misunderstand science, the real world, and all that is in it.

I am dying at this very minute

Maybe we are, but it is slowly (and un-noticeable until many years into our lives) - similar to evolution..


I am dying at this very minute and so are you and there is nothing you can do about it. So hey ho thanks a bunch science for nothing.

I can't believe you expect science to find a way to make people live forever:loopy:.

You can't change nature.

You can't change nature.

No but it would be handy to predict when psunamis and earthquakes will occur, so mans research goes on. Your precious god/allahs not much help.
So whats all the praying for:confused:

Praying is stupid.

You can't change nature.

That is the basis of the arguement that JW use for not having blood transfusions

No but it would be handy to predict when psunamis and earthquakes will occur, so mans research goes on. Your precious god/allahs not much help.
So whats all the praying for:confused:

Praying is stupid.

That is uncalled for. Some people, of ALL faiths, rely on praying/meditating and they include Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Buddists (to name just a few). So to say praying is stupid is an insult to everyone of them.

Fine if you do not believe in a Supreme Being but praying or meditating does give some people a spritual balance- that life on its own cannot.

That is the basis of the arguement that JW use for not having blood transfusions

I didn't mean it that way, and we can assist nature. I meant you can't change the fundamental laws of nature.

I know people who are dying from these things now, in fact I am dying at this very minute and so are you and there is nothing you can do about it. So hey ho thanks a bunch science for nothing.

Hang on a minute, if it weren't for science you'd be dead now. Weren't you in hospital a little while back?

Where was your God when science was helping you?

I didn't mean it that way, and we can assist nature. I meant you can't change the fundamental laws of nature.

Just out of interest what do you actualy mean?

150 years ago people would have said micro surgey, gene splicing or space travel was impossible.

Just out of interest what do you actualy mean?

150 years ago people would have said micro surgey, gene splicing or space travel was impossible.

And according to my understanding of evolution, nature was doing that millions of years ago. Aren't men so clever to be doing it now millions of years later. If it were left to us we wouldn't be here.

And according to my understanding of evolution, nature was doing that millions of years ago. Aren't men so cleaver to be doing it now millions of years later. If it were left to us we wouldn't be here.

Can I speak for everyone when I say:

EH?

Grahame, I really do think you should go and have a nice lie-down. :)

Grahame, I really do think you should go and have a nice lie-down. :)

I will when I have unloaded 45 bags of sand and cement of the back of a lorry. How about giving me a hand. I'm having a really really lovely holiday. :D

So, the fact we are here makes me think, and it doesn't take much faith to believe it, and that is there was a cause for all this, and I give thanks for that daily, regardless of the rights and wrongs and regardless of the imperfections, if indeed they are imperfections and not there for reasons we know nothing about, and I think we have a lot to be grateful for.

Is it wrong to think so?

I will when I have unloaded 45 bags of sand and cement of the back of a lorry. How about giving me a hand. I'm having a really really lovely holiday. :D

So, the fact we are here makes me think, and it doesn't take much faith to believe it, and that is there was a cause for all this, and I give thanks for that daily, regardless of the rights and wrongs and regardless of the imperfections, if indeed they are imperfections and not there for reasons we know nothing about, and I think we have a lot to be grateful for.

Is it wrong to think so?

Again:

EH?

So, you're saying their HAS to be a god because you have a lot to be grateful for?

Well, I bow down to your awesome debating skills.

Why do you twist everything? I am grateful because we have a lot to be thankful for.

Why do you twist everything? I am grateful because we have a lot to be thankful for.

I know, but that isn't the basis for a theological debate.

Ask the Iraqis that have lost family members to the American army, or the Chinese that have been devastated by hurricanes and the Africans who are dying in their thousands through hunger and drought and see if they are grateful for your love of God.

It's great to see that you're thinking about yourself again Grahame.

I know, but that isn't the basis for a theological debate.

Ask the Iraqis that have lost family members to the American army, or the Chinese that have been devastated by hurricanes and the Africans who are dying in their thousands through hunger and drought and see if they are grateful for your love of God.

It's great to see that you're thinking about yourself again Grahame.

Those are the actions of men and perhaps even the droughts, certainly a lot of hunger is caused by war.

You know all this science stuff Mr. Goose, it is a complete waste of time and is of no consequence at all when it comes to the beauty of a lovely picture, or music to the soul.

You are so wrong here - science (knowledge/understanding) is a joy that adds to and stands alongside my music making, travelling, nature study, visits to art galleries, reading of novels, interest in architecture etc.

Without understanding I’d be cow-like, passively observing everything, unable to put things in context. I might even start ascribing supernatural explanations to everything :o

I'm sorry but listening to Beethoven, seeing a Shakespearean play or looking at a Van Gough isn't helped by science at all and I don't think it helped them either, although I can understand motor racing, gymnastics, marshal arts, football and other things can be enhanced with an understanding of basic science especially for the participients but funnily enough I don't like some of those things, but however each to their own and if hang gliding rocks your boat and sailing also then yes I take your point, but I can navigate so you are only talking about elementary science. Anyway it is a point of view the same as mine is and I don't knock you and I thank you to have the same respect for my point of view.

I'm sorry but listening to Beethoven, seeing a Shakespearean play or looking at a Van Gough isn't helped by science at all and I don't think it helped them either, although I can understand motor racing, gymnastics, marshal arts, football and other things can be enhanced with an understanding of basic science especially for the participients but funnily enough I don't like some of those things, but however each to their own and if hang gliding rocks your boat and sailing also then yes I take your point, but I can navigate so you are only talking about elementary science. Anyway it is a point of view the same as mine is and I don't knock you and I thank you to have the same respect for my view.

Take Beethoven - the development of Beethoven’s piano was science, the development of western music & harmony was science, the means of reproduction of Beethoven’s music in your home is science. Without the co-existence of science and human creativity we’d be listening to Beethoven’s Symphony for Two Sticks And A Sheep’s Scull.

Also I might add, the joys of understanding are at least equal to the joys of art, beauty and nature. Take a starry sky – nice to look at but greatly enhanced when you know what it is you’re looking at as well.

I'm sorry but listening to Beethoven, seeing a Shakespearean play or looking at a Van Gough isn't helped by science at all and I don't think it helped them either,
Wrong, if not for science most people wouldn't listen to Beethoven at all as the radio or some form of stored media all of which are products of science. If not for science you could only hear Beethoven at concerts.

Unless you live within walking distance of a gallery that has a few Van Gough's you are going to drive, fly, get the train... to see his paintings something which science made possible.

I've seen a few Shakespeare plays at the theatre (the size and quality of which was only made possible by science) and many more at the cinema and on TV again this simply wouldn't be possible without science.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the high standard of living and quantity of leisure time we have to enjoy Beethoven, Shakespeare, Van Gogh... is only possible because of science, without which the much smaller number of people alive would be scratching subsistence existances bereft of high culture.

"Numerous cultures existed during the period of the Hebrew Bible, and we have musical data that display distinguishing characteristics of them, but the cultures also shared instrument types and musical performance styles, i.e., the remains of an Edomite rattle found at the site Qitmit. The rattle is a head wearing a three?horned hat of some kind. The rattle reveals an aspect of instrument typology in Edomite culture (Braun 1999: III/5-13).

Mesopotamian artifacts show several iconographic scenes. One in particular is an alabaster relief from the south wall of SennacheribÆs temple (704?681 BCE). The scene possibly depicts three captured Judahites performing on lyres (Rashid 1984: 122, Ill. 142).

Egypt developed a highly elaborate musical system and, therefore, possesses the most musical examples. In addition to many unique chordophones, membranophones, and aerophones, the sistra, an idiophone or rattle?like instrument, appears in several Near Eastern contexts, including Israel/Palestine. This instrument served in a religious capacity as the Egyptian goddess Bastet is depicted holding the idiophone (Braun 1999: III/3-5; III/5-13)."

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Music.htm

Medieval players used to travel from village to village and play off the back of a hay cart.

.

I am grateful because we have a lot to be thankful for.

Which is good (in most respects), yet it takes no "god" to be thankful to:rolleyes:

Those are the actions of men and perhaps even the droughts

What utter garbage.

Humans were not responsible for tsunamis, nor hurricanes, cyclones, meteorites crashing to earth and most other naturally occuring events.

I'm sorry but listening to Beethoven, seeing a Shakespearean play or looking at a Van Gough isn't helped by science at all

Actually, if you took the time to actually read what people type on here, you'd realise Norbert never said (initially) that science helped him to enjoy the arts, merely that it (science) is a joy to behold (in much the same way art is).


BOT.. If I were to give Grahame a tenner, would I be funding a mentalist?:hihi:

Medieval players used to travel from village to village and play off the back of a hay cart.

The hay cart was science, the instruments they played on were products of science - science is built into all of us, it's how we learn and how civilisation develops.

As has been said before - religion has nothing to fear from science, as there can be no conflict between a true science and a true religion, because both are describing the same thing - reality :)

Why don't you people who are not interested in Christianity just go home and watch TV instead of being so frustratingly annoying. Science par excellence. And mind numbingly boring.

<snip desperate grasping at straws>
Yeah I'm sure Beethoven's Piano Sonata 14 would sound amazing on one of those Edomite rattles :roll:

Medieval players used to travel from village to village and play off the back of a hay cart.

.
Good point, my current ability to watch Olivier's Henry V or Nunn's 12 Night whenever I want is as nothing compared to the chance of seeing some 'travelling players' on the back of a haycart a few times a year if I'm lucky :loopy:

Yeah I'm sure Beethoven's Piano Sonata 14 would sound amazing on one of those Edomite rattles :roll:


Good point, my current ability to watch Olivier's Henry V or Nunn's 12 Night whenever I want is as nothing compared to the chance of seeing some 'travelling players' on the back of a haycart a few times a year if I'm lucky :loopy:

I suppose you can watch Russian ballet whenever you want, living where you do, most of the time anyway.

Now, now, boys. Let's not be silly.

Now, now, boys. Let's not be silly.

I notice you never offered to help me unload a lorry load of sand and cement. Now that would have been silly wouldn't it!

Plekhanov, I would like to meet you next time you are in Sheffield how about it?

I suppose you can watch Russian ballet whenever you want, living where you do, most of the time anyway.
:huh: You do? I wasn't aware that there was a Russian Ballet channel on free view, not being a fan of ballet I certainly don't own any ballet DVDs Russian or otherwise (with the possible exception of 'The Red Shoes' though I got that because I love Powell and Pressburger).

I notice you never offered to help me unload a lorry load of sand and cement. Now that would have been silly wouldn't it!

At my age, certainly. :)

Yes please, can we meet up sometime?

At my age, certainly. :)

Well I'm 63, retiring next year at 65.

Plekhanov, I would like to meet you next time you are in Sheffield how about it?
Well as my sig suggests I'll be djing in town tonight, where the general public are free to come and try to speak to me. Though given your abject performance at 'saving' people on line I'm not sure what good you think it will do you.

Well as my sig suggests I'll be djing in town tonight, where the general public are free to come and try to speak to me. Though given your abject performance at 'saving' people on line I'm not sure what good you think it will do you.

I'm knackered after lifting a 2 tons of sand and cement, I would like to meet up sometime though just for a chat and don't forget I do "know" you after a fashion, and no, it is just to get to know you better that is all. Why do people think I'm trying to save them, I can't do that.

Why don't you people who are not interested in Christianity just go home and watch TV instead of being so frustratingly annoying. Science par excellence. And mind numbingly boring.

In other words, it's my ball and I'm going home!

It's funny how the minority of one claims that the majority are annoying.

I can't believe you're saying that science hasn't helped anyone, considering you're using it to try and spread the word of God.

Do you actually listen to yourself or do you, once you've said your piece, put your hands over your ears and say LALALALALALALALALA very loudly to block out those who disagree with you and offer intelligent arguements?

Nope, usually when he can't answer the question himself then God speaks for him through yet another quoted passage from his beloved bible. :roll:

I'm knackered after lifting a 2 tons of sand and cement, I would like to meet up sometime though just for a chat and don't forget I do "know" you after a fashion, and no, it is just to get to know you better that is all. Why do people think I'm trying to save them, I can't do that.
If I wanted a quiet chat with an elderly fundamentalist I'd go to my Grandma's church thanks.

Instead why not play Christian Versus Atheist (http://www.neonbubble.com/games/christian-versus-atheist) which I suspect any meeting between us would closely resemble.

If I wanted a quiet chat with an elderly fundamentalist I'd go to my Grandma's church thanks.

Instead why not play Christian Versus Atheist (http://www.neonbubble.com/games/christian-versus-atheist) which I suspect any meeting between us would closely resemble.

I will give the game a try.

I bet your gran is lovely.

If you think I'm gonna give details about my Grandma out to someone who's just typed 'it's you I want' (or for that matter anyone online) you are sadly mistaken.

Grahame, your tenacity and good humour make me smile. :) Even if I still think you're completely wrong.

Grahame, your tenacity and good humour make me smile. :) Even if I still think you're completely wrong.

They said that about some of our greatest inventors but time proved them right. You just wait and I will be saying, "I told you so."

Thanks all the same, you have a sharp mind. :)

They said that about some of our greatest inventors but time proved them right. You just wait and I will be saying, "I told you so."

Thanks all the same, you have a sharp mind. :)

See, where would we be without inventors?

Damn them for using science to progress the human race! DAMN THEM ALLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!

And it has all been made possible by the greatest scientist of all. :thumbsup:

And it has all been made possible by the greatest scientist of all. :thumbsup:

So not nature then?

Wrong, if not for science most people wouldn't listen to Beethoven at all as the radio or some form of stored media all of which are products of science. If not for science you could only hear Beethoven at concerts.

Unless you live within walking distance of a gallery that has a few Van Gough's you are going to drive, fly, get the train... to see his paintings something which science made possible.

I've seen a few Shakespeare plays at the theatre (the size and quality of which was only made possible by science) and many more at the cinema and on TV again this simply wouldn't be possible without science.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the high standard of living and quantity of leisure time we have to enjoy Beethoven, Shakespeare, Van Gogh... is only possible because of science, without which the much smaller number of people alive would be scratching subsistence existances bereft of high culture.

The ability to enjoy isn't defined by the science though is it? You don't have to understand even a TV to watch it.

Just because science can explain some of the ways the world works doesn't disprove the existence of a god. Neither do the improvements in living standards that science has given us disprove the existence of god.

If you're going to accuse others of fallacious arguments, it is best to avoid doing the same thing yourself.

The ability to enjoy isn't defined by the science though is it?
I never said it was though did I? My point was clearly that most modern appreciation of culture would be impossible without science and it's products.

You don't have to understand even a TV to watch it.

Just because science can explain some of the ways the world works doesn't disprove the existence of a god. Neither do the improvements in living standards that science has given us disprove the existence of god.
Will you please point out where in my previous post I made any such claims?

If you're going to accuse others of fallacious arguments, it is best to avoid doing the same thing yourself.
Likewise if you're going to accuse others of making fallacious arguments you actually make sure they actually made the arguments you are criticising, instead of strawmen of your own invention.

This thread kind of reminds me of school, where a bunch of yoboes would pick on one kid cos he was a little different, feeling strength in numbers to bully.
I certainly don't have the faith that Grahame does. I'm just not sure, and to be honest a message of peace and love would be preferable to the babel going on here.Grow up everybody.

I never said it was though did I?....<snip>

Oh I am SO sorry... I must have completely misunderstood what you were saying when you refuted that science doesn't aid the appreciation of art. What YOU were talking about was the mechanics of it, nothing to do with the emotional connections we make with a work of art (be it music or a painting). I think it might have been the technical section you were looking for then.

This thread kind of reminds me of school, where a bunch of yoboes would pick on one kid cos he was a little different, feeling strength in numbers to bully.
I certainly don't have the faith that Grahame does. I'm just not sure, and to be honest a message of peace and love would be preferable to the babel going on here.Grow up everybody.
There's no need to sulk just because people objected (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3588965&postcount=290) to you advocating a ethical code which supports slavery.

<snip petty sniping>
When you're done with your pitiful attempts at sarcasm perhaps you could get round to pointing out where in my previous post (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3592738&postcount=386) I made the fallacious arguments you attributed to me (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3593249&postcount=413).

When you're done with your pitiful attempts at sarcasm perhaps you could get round to pointing out where in my previous post (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3592738&postcount=386) I made the fallacious arguments you attributed to me (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3593249&postcount=413).

Haha - So prickly Plek?

My point was that in a thread that has degenerated into a faith/atheist mud-slinging match, you had (as I read it) taken one point - that science has no relevance to the appreciation of art (an analogy for how science has no relevance to the existence or not of a god) - and confronted the poster with some 'Oh but you can listen to a concert on the radio!' argument. I was not the one constructing straw men to fight with.

;)

Haha - So prickly Plek?

My point was that in a thread that has degenerated into a faith/atheist mud-slinging match, you had (as I read it) taken one point - that science has no relevance to the appreciation of art
Wrong again the claim I responded to was:

I'm sorry but listening to Beethoven, seeing a Shakespearean play or looking at a Van Gough isn't helped by science at all
Hence my response that not only is our appreciation of art ‘helped by science’ most ways in which people enjoy cultural products like music, paintings and plays are utterly dependent upon the products of science.

(an analogy for how science has no relevance to the existence or not of a god)
:huh: Really so the claim that a magic man who lives in the sky made the universe and still interferes with it isn’t a claim about the nature and the universe?

- and confronted the poster with some 'Oh but you can listen to a concert on the radio!' argument. I was not the one constructing straw men to fight with.

;)
Oh the irony, misrepresenting both my post and the post I was responding in a pitiful attempt to accuse me of strawmanning :hihi:

That interactive game is top!

Thing is, you can beat Grahame savagely with the slipper of reality for a whole lifetime and he still won't remove the nappies of denial.

Wrong again ... <snip> ... my response that not only is our appreciation of art ‘helped by science’ most ways in which people enjoy cultural products like music, paintings and plays are utterly dependent upon the products of science.

I read the post you were responding to as I said before. I believe you took it literally and outside the context in which it was set. I don't believe it was accidental either.

:huh: Really so the claim that a magic man who lives in the sky made the universe and still interferes with it isn’t a claim about the nature and the universe?

Haha - betraying your prejudices there. Who said anything about a magic man living in the sky? That's just the simplistic and fairy-tale idea of God you want to argue against, because it's the one you can argue against. I doubt anyone over the age of seven would actually have this concept of a God.



Oh the irony, misrepresenting both my post and the post I was responding in a pitiful attempt to accuse me of strawmanning :hihi:

lol - you WERE.

You see, this is why I think atheists are so short sighted. A TV is a vehicle that will allow millions of people to watch lots of performances they wouldn't otherwise see. But the television would be no good without the transmitters, the transmitters would be no good without the studio, the studio would be no good without the orchestra, the orchestra would be no good without the score, and for the score we need a composer who has no need of any of these things in order to create his composition. Likewise for the greatest creator of all who had no need for these modern tranklements. The earth came into existence without any of these modern day simplistic, when compared to the wonders of sight and memory, toys. Oh the frivolity of science and the stupidity of those who bow the knee to this, very inferior pagan god.

.

I read the post you were responding to as I said before. I believe you took it literally and outside the context in which it was set. I don't believe it was accidental either.
Right so I strawmanned him by responding to what he wrote, gotcha :roll:

Haha - betraying your prejudices there. Who said anything about a magic man living in the sky? That's just the simplistic and fairy-tale idea of God you want to argue against, because it's the one you can argue against. I doubt anyone over the age of seven would actually have this concept of a God.
:huh: So you're claiming that The Bishop of Carlisle (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556131/Floods-are-judgment-on-society,-say-bishops.html) for example is under 7?

lol - you WERE.
I think perhaps you should read a basic book on debating as you clearly don't understand the terms you are trying to use.

Why do you twist everything? I am grateful because we have a lot to be thankful for.


Your debating skills are not that good, you keep ducking this one.

As all thinking people have figured out, the God of Christianity is a reflection of human mind at different points in evolution.
God is filled with wrath, revenge, vanity, hatred, jealousy... all human characteristics. He either instills desires of all sorts in us or, as if he were playing some sick game, allows a Satan to be created who instills in us these desires, then this God forbids us to satisfy them.
We are asked to believe this completely criminally insane fellow stands by while hell is being created; (If it was he who created it, he becomes even more of a sicko) as a place in which his anger and revenge can be satisfied.
To the above unpleasant human traits attributed to our man-made Caligula look-a-like has been added prayer. We can curry favor from this psychotic by prayer, a form of begging. God will let children be brutally tortured, raped and murdered unless he is sufficiently begged.
Is God perfect? God won't become perfect until the quality of mind creating God becomes perfected.

Right so I strawmanned him by responding to what he wrote, gotcha :roll:


:huh: So you're claiming that The Bishop of Carlisle (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556131/Floods-are-judgment-on-society,-say-bishops.html) for example is under 7?


I think perhaps you should read a basic book on debating as you clearly don't understand the terms you are trying to use.

You clearly understand all too well the techniques and technicalities of sophistry. :P

Right so I strawmanned him by responding to what he wrote, gotcha :roll:


:huh: So you're claiming that The Bishop of Carlisle (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556131/Floods-are-judgment-on-society,-say-bishops.html) for example is under 7?


I think perhaps you should read a basic book on debating as you clearly don't understand the terms you are trying to use.

Talking about the Bishop of Carlisle, there are people (not me) who say the disasters we see today are a final warning. Now, think about it for a moment and ask yourself this question. If these disasters were a final warning and it went out in the media, what would you do, would you heed them and do something about it, or would you carry on as normal?

There are people (not me) who say the disasters we see today are a final warning. Now, think about it for a moment and ask yourself this question. If these disasters were a final warning and it went out in the media, what would you do, would you heed them and do something about it, or would you carry on as normal?

And you've ducked it again.

Your debating skills are not that good, you keep ducking this one.

As all thinking people have figured out, the God of Christianity is a reflection of human mind at different points in evolution.
God is filled with wrath, revenge, vanity, hatred, jealousy... all human characteristics. He either instills desires of all sorts in us or, as if he were playing some sick game, allows a Satan to be created who instills in us these desires, then this God forbids us to satisfy them.
We are asked to believe this completely criminally insane fellow stands by while hell is being created; (If it was he who created it, he becomes even more of a sicko) as a place in which his anger and revenge can be satisfied.
To the above unpleasant human traits attributed to our man-made Caligula look-a-like has been added prayer. We can curry favor from this psychotic by prayer, a form of begging. God will let children be brutally tortured, raped and murdered unless he is sufficiently begged.
Is God perfect? God won't become perfect until the quality of mind creating God becomes perfected.

Praying is stupid.

That interactive game is top!

Thing is, you can beat Grahame savagely with the slipper of reality for a whole lifetime and he still won't remove the nappies of denial.So why do it?

There's no need to sulk just because people objected (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3588965&postcount=290) to you advocating a ethical code which supports slavery.I wonder where in my comments there was anything about slavery. I spoke of a few things like murder, robbery, and marriage. You have this tendency to accuse people you don't know of things that they are not responsible for. You may well be the bully I spoke about, one of the gang in the school yard, but I don't know you, and am not particularly keen on doing so.Maybe the avatar is appropriate.

Good question. Actually...i'm not sure i'd like it if the G were to agree with us.

Which kind of says that the enjoyment to be derived, possibly from both sides, is in fact in the act of the argument itself, and not a desire to reveal truth.

Hmm.

And you've ducked it again.

Your debating skills are not that good, you keep ducking this one.



I don't always see your posts Jobee because you are on my ignore list. Well you ignore God don't you, so I ignore Jobee. :)

I don't think there is a Hell like people think, there are a couple of reasons for that, one is that the word hell means death and the grave, as simple as that, nothing more, nothing less, and also near Jerusalem is a valley called Hell where people dump all their rubbish and there are fires burning continually and people take it literally, but basically things that are thrown into Hell have come to the end of the line and that is it, the end, and I don't think there is conciousness and as I say and I can find it out for you if you want but honestly the literal meaning of hell is "grave."

Just to add Jobee that the Bible uses metaphor a lot. For instance, Jesus referred to Himself as "the bread of life" and "the good shepherd." In the same way, God the Father is referred to as "a refuge" and "a consuming fire." But these examples do not mean that Jesus is literally a loaf of bread or a sheep farmer, or that the Father is a pile of rocks or a blasting furnace. And neither is Hell Jobee. At least I don't think so.

Good question. Actually...i'm not sure i'd like it if the G were to agree with us.

Which kind of says that the enjoyment to be derived, possibly from both sides, is in fact in the act of the argument itself, and not a desire to reveal truth.

Hmm.

Yes John, but we can argue and we can debate, but we don't have to be insulting do we?

So why do it?

Comments like:
what you see on the screen is God speaking through me. on a thread about Christian fundamentalists don't help his cause;)

I don't always see your posts Jobee because you are on my ignore list.

You're in good company Jobee (Grahame's had half of SF on ignore at some time or other):D

That interactive game is top!

Though a tad predictable:rolleyes:

That interactive game is top!

Thing is, you can beat Grahame savagely with the slipper of reality for a whole lifetime and he still won't remove the nappies of denial.

I bet he wouldn't agree with this john.

Man created God, and made sophistry a way of life.j::huh:

You see, this is why I think atheists are so short sighted. A TV is a vehicle that will allow millions of people to watch lots of performances they wouldn't otherwise see. But the television would be no good without the transmitters, the transmitters would be no good without the studio, the studio would be no good without the orchestra, the orchestra would be no good without the score, and for the score we need a composer who has no need of any of these things in order to create his composition. Likewise for the greatest creator of all who had no need for these modern tranklements. The earth came into existence without any of these modern day simplistic, when compared to the wonders of sight and memory, toys. Oh the frivolity of science and the stupidity of those who bow the knee to this, very inferior pagan god.
Any ideas on this Graham???

.Man created God, and made sophistry a way of life.

You're in good company Jobee (Grahame's had half of SF on ignore at some time or other):D

sccsux, if sulky is talking to you ask him what he thinks of this?


Man created God, and made sophistry a way of life.

Yes John, but we can argue and we can debate, but we don't have to be insulting do we?


This is not insulting Grahame.

Man created God, and made sophistry a way of life.:loopy:

Talking about the Bishop of Carlisle, there are people (not me) who say the disasters we see today are a final warning. Now, think about it for a moment and ask yourself this question. If these disasters were a final warning and it went out in the media, what would you do, would you heed them and do something about it, or would you carry on as normal?

What I would do is consider the person giving the final warning to be an immoral bully and a threat. :rolleyes:

In the context of god it would convince me the last thing I should do is bow down.

In other words you know best and the person warning about an earthquake is an immoral bully. Yeh right. :huh:

In other words you know best and the person warning about an earthquake is an immoral bully. Yeh right. :huh:

I know my morality best.

And the person claiming that an earthquake is down to ungodliness is a bully, yes. They are using the treat of violence to try to convince someone of their opinion.

I know my morality best.

And the person claiming that an earthquake is down to ungodliness is a bully, yes. They are using the treat of violence to try to convince someone of their opinion.

I was asking that if a warning came over the media from a scientist, say about a potential earthquake, what would you do, would you ignore it?

I was asking that if a warning came over the media from a scientist, say about a potential earthquake, what would you do, would you ignore it?

If I was warned of an earthquake, over the radio, I would take the actions recommended.

If the warning was linked, like the Bishop of Carlisile did, to ungodliness I would conclude that he and his god are a bullies and not worthy of respect.

If I was warned of an earthquake, over the radio, I would take the actions recommended.

If the warning was linked, like the Bishop of Carlisile did, to ungodliness I would conclude that he and his god are a bully and not worthy of respect.


Good. A lot of people would carry on regardless with the attitude "it will never happen to me." Well, lets see what happens, I saw a bit of TV last night about over population and declining resources and it was very worrying.

Good. A lot of people would carry on regardless with the attitude "it will never happen to me." Well, lets see what happens, I saw a bit of TV last night about over population and declining resources and it was very worrying.

You just don't listen do you?

Wildcat isn't saying that "it wouldn't happen to them", they're saying that if a bishop said the reason for the earthquake is because we don't believe in God then that's wrong!

It's about on a par with the evangelists who use scare tactics to get people to join up.

You see, this is why I think atheists are so short sighted. A TV is a vehicle that will allow millions of people to watch lots of performances they wouldn't otherwise see. But the television would be no good without the transmitters, the transmitters would be no good without the studio, the studio would be no good without the orchestra, the orchestra would be no good without the score, and for the score we need a composer who has no need of any of these things in order to create his composition. Likewise for the greatest creator of all who had no need for these modern tranklements. The earth came into existence without any of these modern day simplistic, when compared to the wonders of sight and memory, toys. Oh the frivolity of science and the stupidity of those who bow the knee to this, very inferior pagan god.

.

Didn't Noah use science to build his ark?

This is what the Bishop of Carlisle said:

"The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's (natures) judgement on the immorality and greed of modern society"

Think about the devastation of the rain forests and the effect it has on ecology and then tell me the Bishop was wrong.

This is what the Bishop of Carlisle said:

"The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's (natures) judgement on the immorality and greed of modern society"

Think about the devastation of the rain forests and the effect it has on ecology and then tell me the Bishop was wrong.

So, God is a pagan God then?